The mainstream media has been silent about the events surrounding the
Millennium Assembly and Summit that will occur during the first weeks
of September. The Internet, however, is teeming with articles and information
about the largest gathering of world leaders in history.

Not surprisingly, the reports range from hysteria to hype. On the one
hand, reports can be found which claim that the world as we know it will
end when the final gavel falls on September 9th. On the other hand, there
are reports that claim the concern is overblown, and that fears of global
governance are based on little more than the wishful thinking of radical
non-government organizations.

Both positions are wrong.

It is extremely important that the American people know what is happening
at the United Nations. The Millennium Assembly and Summit is, perhaps,
the most important meeting in the history of the U.N. When the sun rises
on September 10, the world will appear precisely as it was on September
9; it will not be the same world, however.

The purpose of the Millennium Assembly and Summit is to bring together
the official U.N. delegates to the Millennium Assembly, and as many as
160 heads of state, to authorize the United Nations to begin the implementation
of a series of recommendations designed to bring about a new system of
governance described by the U.N. as "global governance."

The changes will not be immediate. In fact, some of the changes may take
years to accomplish. But the changes on the horizon are far more than
the wishful thinking of radical NGOs. The September event at the U.N.
is designed to provide the U.N. with official authorization to continue
a process that has been underway for many years - without official authorization.

The United Nations insists that "global governance" is not
"world government." The distinction between the two terms, however,
lies in the eyes of the beholder. At the very least, global governance
is "...the subordination of national sovereignty to democratic transnationalism,"
as reported in the EcoSocialist
Review (Summer, 1991) about the meeting in Stokholm at which the Commission
on Global Governance was conceived. At worst, global governance is a system
of centralized control of an enormous bureaucracy through which public
policies are developed and administered.

The specific actions recommended to achieve global governance are not
the ideas of NGOs. The NGOs are the pawns of the originators of the ideas
to give the appearance of public support. The recommendations for actions
to achieve global governance have evolved through a series
of conferences around the world for nearly two decades. These recommendations
were refined by the Commission on Global Governance for four years, and
released in a 410-page report entitled Our
Global Neighborhood, in 1995. Since then, those recommendations have
been further refined, and to some extent, implemented through the reform
process led by Maurice Strong, Executive Coordinator for U.N. Reform,
who was also a member of the Commission on Global Governance.

It is no accident that the Charter
for Global Democracy , developed by a network of NGOs, contains virtually
all the recommendations of the Commission on Global Governance. It is
no accident that the 31-page
report of the NGO Forum, contains essentially all the recommendations
presented in the Charter for Global Democracy, arranged in a format almost
parallel to the agenda of the Millennium Assembly. It is no accident that
Kofi Annan's April 3 report prepared for the Millennium Assembly, sets
forth all the urgent needs that must be addressed, which - not coincidentally
- are addressed by the recommendations of the NGO Forum.

For example, the idea of eliminating the veto and permanent member status
in the U.N. Security Council was advanced in 1995 by the Commission on
Global Governance, which said:

"The world must find a better basis for constituting its highest
organ of governance than permanent membership for a few countries. We
believe strongly that the veto is an unacceptable feature in global governance.:
(p. 239)

Charter99, also known as the Charter for Global Democracy, was developed
between 1997 and 1999 as a project of the United Nations Association and
other NGOs that translated the recommendations of the Commission on Global
Governance into 12 principles. Principle number 4 says simply: "Make
the U.N. Security Council fair, effective, and democratic. In his April
3, 2000 report prepared for the Millennium Assembly, Kofi Annan says:

"...decision-making structures through which governance is exercised
internationally must reflect the broad realities of our times. The United
Nations Security Council is an obvious case in point. Composition of the
Council today does not fully represent either the character or the needs
of our globalized world." (Paragraph 44, )

The NGO Forum, itself created by the United Nations in compliance with
a recommendation from the Commission on Global Governance, incorporated
the recommendations contained in the Charter for Global Democracy in its
May 26, 2000 report prepared for the Millennium Assembly. Their report
says:

" The U.N. should begin to phase out the existing permanent membership....
[and] to limit and move toward eliminating the use of the veto."
(p. 27)

This process is typical of the evolution of all the recommendations of
the Commission on Global Governance. Some of the recommendations, such
as global taxation, have also been endorsed by the Canadian government,
and similar resolutions of endorsement has been introduced in the U.S.
Congress (HR4453 and H.Con.Res 346). These recommendations are not simply
the wishful thinking of radical NGOs.

But neither are these recommendations going to become international law
upon adjournment of the Millennium Assembly. The most likely immediate
outcome of the September meeting is the adoption of a "Declaration
of World Leaders," or a statement by some similar name. The document
will most likely express the objectives to be achieved by the implementation
of the recommendations, rather than a statement of the recommendations
themselves. The document - by whatever name it is called - is also quite
likely to authorize the creation of a new special U.N. Commission to oversee
the restructuring necessary to achieve the objectives stated in the declaration.

Annan

As early as 1998, Kofi Annan laid the groundwork for such a special commission
in Agenda Item 157, Document
Number A/52/850 which calls for the Millennium Assembly to establish
a special commission "to examine the constitutional framework as
outlined in the Secretary-General's reform report" (A/51/950, paragraph
89).

The process of implementing all of the recommendations of the Commission
on Global Governance will take several years. Many of the recommendations
can be implemented administratively, while some will require modifying
the U.N. Charter which requires Senate ratification.

What will be different on September 10, is that the United Nations will
have the authority of the U.N. General Assembly and the signature of the
heads of state of most of the world's nations to begin implementing the
recommendations required to achieve the objectives expressed in the Millennium
Declaration.

The Millennium Assembly and Summit is seen by the United Nations to be
the point beyond which there is no turning back from a system of "democratic
transnationalism," otherwise described as global governance.

Most of the world sees global governance as an improvement over their
present condition. To those who cherish the principles of freedom which
produced the United States of America, global governance must be seen
as a giant step backward. Global governance not only subordinates national
sovereignty to an international power, it views individual freedom as
a commodity to be granted, or denied, by government. Private property
is seen as an obstacle to the equitable distribution of the earth's resources,
and private prosperity, possible only by ravaging the less fortunate,
is scorned as greed,.

What's happening in New York cannot be stopped. The global governance,
as envisioned by the Commission on Global Governance, the NGO Forum, and
the United Nations can - and must be stopped. It can be stopped by withdrawing
support and funding from the United Nations before the United Nations
acquires independent funding through global taxation.

Global governance must be stopped, not only because of its anticipated
power over the United States, but also because it would postpone, by perhaps
as much as a century, the discovery of the principles of freedom and self-governance
throughout the rest of the world. America has demonstrated the power of
individual freedom, private property and free markets, and should use
the United Nations to encourage other nations to enjoy the same benefits.
It is unconscionable for representatives of the United States to advocate
for a system of governance that diminishes those principles of freedom,
either in the United States, or in any other nation.